Eric Hunt's videos won't be bothered with since Eric has since abandoned and denounced denial in no uncertain terms: Eric Hunt is No Longer a Holocaust Denier. And obviously, if his own videos no longer convince him, there's no need to waste time. But here's Caroline Sturdy Colls' response.

1. Debunking of the video "Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told."

We treat only the Holocaust denial part here, if it is not credible, the rest falls apart on its own. (If you want to see the other points treated, look here.)

The Nuremberg Danzig soap has never been debunked. It was not mass-produced but some human soap was indeed made. It was obviously not the "Jewish soap", which is a myth. This claim is fully treated here.

The shrunken heads are supported by documentary evidence, as elucidated here.

So are the tattoos, which were gathered from corpses for research on criminality, as explained here.

The existence of the extermination decision is documented in Goebbels' diary entry describing Hitler's speech in a small circle of high-ranking officials on 12.12.41:

"Regarding the Jewish question, the Führer is determined to clear the table. He warned the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction.
Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of the Jews must be its necessary consequence. We cannot be sentimental about it. It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews. We should have sympathy rather with our own German people. If the German people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another campaign in the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives."

Then he implies that the only gassing witnesses that count testified at Nuremberg (and yes, Nuremberg witnesses could be cross-examined).

The fact is that there were many dozens of trials having to do specifically with gassings, and hundreds about the Holocaust in general (which is not reducible to gassings). Of them many took place in West Germany, so the "Soviets" part was just another strawman.

The "Auschwitz had lots of non-extermination stuff" idiocy is debunked here. Also this.

David Cole now admits that Nazis gassed and shot Jews on a massive scale which debunks the film right there and then. Some of Cole's nitpicks about the small Auschwitz gas chamber are treated here and here.

All Cole debunked were misconceptions about the small gas chamber (which was not in the extermination camp Birkenau in the first place and in which only a few gassings happened).

Sure, the Soviets tried to reconstruct the small gas chamber (after the crematorium morgue had been converted into an air-raid shelter) and partially botched the job, big deal. This doesn't refute the small gas chamber in the slightest, nor, of course, the big gas chambers at Birkenau.

There are laws against denying the Communist crimes, the Armenian genocide and the law in Turkey that bans the assertion of the Armenian genocide, so the claim about the Holocaust being the only such event is another lie.

Of course, the author never ever deals with the extensive documentary evidence for the Holocaust, he's totally silent about the massacres of Jews like Babiy Yar or other mobile killing units massacres.

"Later he published a terrible indictment of the Zionist movement. The Zionists have abandoned him and his people because they were ultraorthodox non-Zionists, he charged, as if Gisi Fleischmann had not been his partner. He based his arguments on letters he quoted from memory; they are unavailable in any archives. They may have been lost or spirited away, or they may never have been written."

3. Indeed, this letter purports to have been written on May 15, 1944 "in a cave near Lublin", and presents the Hungarian deportations as if they're in full swing. And yet May 15 was the day the first Hungarian transports left Hungary. They arrived in Auschwitz only on May 16. Clearly the text as quoted cannot be authentic.

4. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the alleged letter is genuine. Then it's just another example of cherrypicking - among a large set of letters of course you can find any number. It only becomes "meaningful" if you ignore all the other numbers you omitted.

Ehrenburg's quote is from December 1944, late enough to make such an estimate as the absolute bulk of the Holocaust victims have been dead by then.

Listed estimated death tolls come from random mostly unauthoritative sources and mean exactly nothing for the evidence-based historiography. You can find extremely diverging estimates of Stalin's victims, does that mean Stalin wasn't a criminal? Also see here.

The list is topped off with the lie about what the Red Cross allegedly claims, debunked here.

Claim #7: the truth does not fear an honest investigation; Holocaust deniers are, en masse, not honest and engage in pure propaganda. And propaganda can destroy the truth. Hence the anti-HD laws (which I don't support). Also, to take another example, Turkey has a law against the affirmation of the Armenian genocide, while several countries have laws against the denial of the Armenian genocide. None of this is relevant to whether the Armenian genocide happened. Same applies to the laws against denial of Communist crimes - do they mean there were no Communist crimes?

Claim #9: the claims were mere rumors without any serious support, except the one about shrunken heads those were indeed made in Buchenwald (not from Jews).

I didn't quite get what the claim #10 was. Was it about the Holocaust being a dogma? But if so, why do most deniers whom I send these links which lead to sourced, informative articles refuse to tackle the arguments in them and instead engage in character assassination, ad hominems and insults?

4. Debunking of the video "Holocaust Myths"

21 minutes, apparently by Jim Rizoli.

Claim about revised Auschwitz death toll debunked here. (Note that finding some random book that took it seriously does not prove anything.)

Claim about Auschwitz gastight doors: the doors for the homicidal gas chambers were the same doors used for Zyklon B delousing gas chambers, so they obviously were gastight by definition. Less cyanide is used for short-period homicidal gassings than for multi-hour delousings.

Krema I is not in its original state so the claims about its doors are meaningless.

The claim about "combined strength" of thousands of people pushing on the doors is a macabre absurdity. Thousands of people were never near the door. Maybe a few naked, confused people at the door, and they're dead pretty soon. Addressed in detail here.

None of the experts who have honestly studied Auschwitz have ever denied the gassings. Only the dishonest ignoramuses like Lindsey made such claims. Why is Lindsey dishonest?

1. He claimed that the underground were "cool", not mentioning that they were preheated before gassings, and that the heat of hundreds or thousands of bodies would generate enormous amounts of heat too (he was forced to admit it later). He also did not mention the Nazi wartime studies showing that HCN evaporates readily even at cold temperatures.

3. The "skin absorption" argument has been debunked even by a denier star Fritz Berg:

"Faurisson has repeatedly overstated the danger of HCN absorption through the skin. Although skin certainly does absorb HCN, it does so rather slowly. According to a source which Faurisson has himself used, 10 minutes are required to overcome a man with a gas mask whose skin is exposed to a concentration of 2% HCN in air."

“It should also be remembered that a man may be overcome by the absorption of hydrocyanic acid gas through the skin; a concentration of 2 percent hydrocyanic acid being sufficient to thus overcome a man in about 10 minutes. Therefore, even if one wears a gas mask, exposure to concentrations of hydrocyanic acid gas of 1 percent by volume or greater should be made only in case of necessity and then for a period not longer than 1 minute at a time. In general, places containing this gas should be well ventilated with fresh air before the wearer of the mask enters, thus reducing the concentration of hydrocyanic acid gas to low fractional percentages.” (See: The Gas Mask, Technical Manual No. 3-205, War Department, Washington, October 9, 1941, p. 144, NA RG 407, Records of the Adjutant General's Office, 1917 TM 3-205.)
The typical lethal concentration for an execution chamber and for delousing is only 0.1% HCN in air, in other words, the lethal gas need only be one-twentieth as strong as the gas discussed in Faurisson's reference. If one applies a rule of thumb or reciprocity known sometimes as Henderson's Rule, one would need twenty times as long to cause the same toxic effect. In other words, approximately 200 minutes or three hours of exposure to 0.1% HCN would be needed to overcome a worker wearing a gas mask but whose skin is exposed. It is almost inconceivable, however, that workers removing corpses would be exposed to anything near these concentrations after the doors were opened."

The letter from some Roubeix guy doesn't cite any arguments and can be instantly dismissed.

Now to the issues of ventilation. Note that the gas chambers were not planned as such from the beginning. It has been shown by Pressac that they were at first planned as morgues and converted into gas chambers pretty late in the planning. Hence the things that might seem incongruous, like undressing room having more air exchanges per hour than the gas chamber.

The problem for the deniers is that we do know that a gas chamber existed there, in Leichenkeller 1. It was described as a "gas cellar" (Gaskeller) and a "gassing cellar" (Vergasungskeller):

The denier explanations have been pretty varied - some claim, without any evidence, that it was an air-raid shelter but this cannot be since no such air-raid shelter would be described as a Vergasungskeller (it would be Gasschutzkeller or something similar).

Another explanation, promoted by Mattogno among others, is that they tried to install a delousing chamber in Leichenkeller 1. But if so, then the deniers admit that the ventilation system in the morgue was sufficient for handling of Zyklon B, and moreover the undressing room still had a slightly more powerful ventilation as the delousing chamber in this case too. So it's hardly an issue only for the homicidal chamber.

The denier then distorts a witnesses quote about faces. He was obviously using metaphoric language to describe people becoming a mound of dead flesh. Obvious from the context. So the denier is simply dishonest.

The denier then distorts yet another witnesses' quote, claiming he claimed skin turned into glue. He of course claimed no such thing. Rather he referred to difficulty of detaching corpses from one another - which would be an obvious effect of rigor mortis, among other things.

The denier then jumps to crematoria capacities but, of course, compares apples and oranges - modern crematoria, or more specifically the modern cremation procedures prescribed by law cannot be compared to the procedures employed in the wartime Nazi camps. This is explained at length here.

Due to the differences in procedure the Nazis were able to achieve the average capacities that were much larger than the modern crematoria as numerous documents attest.

I'm afraid I'll take the word of the Nazi cremation specialists over that of some amateur deniers who lie about other matters as well. But even Mattogno had to concede that in Gusen cremations took much shorter than than 1 hour.

As for coke in Gusen, this has no bearing on Auschwitz at all. A Nazi engineer calculated the needed amounts of coke for the ovens as they were used in Auschwitz for a 12-hour period, based on the information from the oven manufacturer. He noted that through continuous use (bei Dauerbetrieb) the amounts of coke needed are significantly smaller. Indeed, the continuous cremation differs starkly from many individual cremations (with their heating down and heating up cycles).

For example the magistrate of Wiesbaden wrote to the firm Topf & Söhne (who had constructed the Auschwitz ovens) on 19.12.1949 (ThHStAW, Bestand Topf u. Söhne, 231, Bl. 35):

"It is hereby confirmed that Mr. chief engineer Klettner carried out the planned conversion of the cremation furnace in 2 1/2 weeks, taking into account improvements according to your latest experiences.
Mr. Klettner demonstrated the furnace in operation and handed it over after three days of trial operation with a total of 16 cremations to our complete satisfaction today.
The performance of the oven, especially in terms of fuel consumption, exceeded all expectations. On the third day after the commissioning, cremation times of 40 minutes were already being achieved without any fuel consumption except for the required heating up [of the oven].
You are free to show the oven to the interested parties after a prior notification.
Publication of the above letter without prior permission on this side is not permitted."

Chimney fires are of course possible and have nothing whatsoever to do with coke but rather with the soot accumulating in the chimneys (the more, the more actively the ovens are used). Duh.

As for the photos, the first question is whether the smoke from chimneys would be observable on the aerial photos at all. Second issue is whether the crematoria smoked continuously during the operation or only in certain periods (that they did smoke we know from photos showing soot on chimneys).

Third issue is whether they were taken in the periods of crematoria inactivity (which could be on a particular day without any transports, on the days where crematoria were inactive because of repairs; and possibly every day for a few hours for the oven maintenance) or when the open-air incineration pits were used instead (clearly visible on the photos). Merely throwing out "peak extermination activity" doesn't mean anything. One has to go through the photos day by day and see what happened on those days. One will find that on several of those dates there is no evidence of transports, and on three dates the corpses were burned in the incineration pits, the smoke being clearly visible. On May 31 one chimney can seen to be "glowing" from the inside.

The refractory brick stuff is an old canard. A German researcher found that refractory bricks fail after a certain number of cremation cycles. That makes sense. But this only refers to individual cremations in civil crematoria with heating and cooling cycles, obviously not to continuous multiple cremations as practiced in Auschwitz, where one cremation cycle meant hundreds of bodies, not 1. More about that here.

Conclusion: the author is an ignorant liar repeating debunked claims.

5. Debunking of the video "Europa The Last Battle Holocaust Segment #8"

This video is peak Gish gallop. I did not bother to go through each frame.

The author begins by outright lying that the majority of partisans were Jews and that Jews were shot as partisans and not Jews. After this everything else he says can be ignored.

Just for the fun of it I skimmed through the rest. He lies about Jews declaring war on Germany (they didn't; a tabloid "fake news" headline is not evidence of an actual war declaration) and this allegedly giving a legal right to Germany to put Jews into camps (it didn't and the Nazis never used it as an argument for the camps).

People in labor camps were dying in great numbers due to systemic mistreatment (that is, even ignoring the extermination for a sec) long before the end of the war and the bombing of the infrastructure (see e.g. Wachsmann's KL).

He outright lies about no documents referring to policy of extermination - see here, here, here just for starters.

He outright lies about the Red Cross, which was not able to visit all camps and certainly not any extermination camps. He fabricates the alleged Red Cross quote about the alleged interrogations of detainees about the gas chambers.

He relies on the fraud Krege who made lots of claims about GPR tests at Treblinka but has failed to publish his results in 2 decades now. Leading deniers reject his hoax contention that the soil was not disturbed at all - after all, they claim that there was a transit camp there (with at least several of thousands of Jews buried). I.e. Krege is an outright liar. For more see here.

From the existence of the Prussian Blue in the delousing chambers does not follow the necessity of such in the homicidal chambers - completely different modes of operation.

He lies about a court's decision about the Anne Frank diary - never happened; he lied about significant portions of the diary being written in ballpoint pen or about BKA concluding so; he lied about the handwriting not matching; on the contrary, the diary was fully forensically tested and found genuine.

Since I was just skimming, I've probably missed a lot of stuff and could probably double the above list.

It is clear that the author of the video is nothing but a fabricator and/or a mindless regurgitator of other denier lies who has merely amassed as many internet memes (debunked here) as possible but has never done any real research.

6. Debunking of the video "The greatest lie ever told - The Holocaust."

Attributed to "Eleanor Wittakers" (the narrator is male).

2:29: the author shows her absolute ignorance by stating that the Holocaust is defined as murder of 6 million Jews in concentration camps. In fact, no serious source states this, any basic credible source will mention the millions killed outside of any camps - due to the mass shootings, gassings in gas vans, starvation etc. - as well as the fact that most extermination camps (like Treblinka) were not even concentration camps.

That's it. We can end it here. The author has zero idea about the definition of the term "Holocaust", which renders anything else she says on the topic not credible.

Around minute 13: the author does not actually cite any credible sources on the alleged systematic torture in Nuremberg - McCarthy's lack of credibility is well known (including in relation to the Malmedy massacre trials, the investigation of which showed McCarthy's key claims lacking credibility). And the Malmedy trials didn't have to do with Nuremberg in the first place.

15:21: the repetition of the ignorant statement "that 6,000,000 Jews were systematically murdered by Germans in concentration camps", see above. Once again, this is enough to dismiss the whole video.

15:38: the credible estimates of the Holocaust death toll vary from 5 to 6 million, they are based on a country-by-country analysis of the Jewish population, on the Nazis' deportation and camp records and so on. They are certainly not based on any one testimony. Here is one such scholarly study that documents that between 5 and 6 million Jews died.

21:00: the author tries to calculate the rate at which the Jews had to have been killed and comes to the figure of "2.281 Jews killed in a minute". The author however forgets to make an argument. Is this number supposed to speak for itself? Well, obviously no - there's nothing meaningful or useful about this purely abstract rate. Such "rates" can be concocted for any mass murder. And?

21:40: Actually Auschwitz had a gas chamber since late 1941 (in the main camp crematorium) and Auschwitz-Birkenau had two buildings with gas chambers already in 1942, so the author shows her absolute ignorance again. Oh, and the majority of the Holocaust killings obviously did not happen in Auschwitz.

22:00: the author repeats the debunked "World Almanac" canard, in fact outright lying, since at least one of her post-war numbers explicitly refers to 1939 in the Almanac.

24:24: the juggling of the Holocaust survivor numbers is irrelevant - it depends solely on the "wider" definition of a survivor, to wit:

The two researchers reached radically different conclusions. On Ukeles' count, there are 687,900 Holocaust survivors in the world today. DellaPergola's estimate is much larger: 1,092,000 survivors.
Both demographers relied on the same standard in terms of defining a Holocaust survivor: Any Jew who lived for any period of time in a country that was ruled by the Nazis or their allies is called a Holocaust survivor (by DellaPergola) or a Nazi victim (by Ukeles).
The gap in the results derives mainly from DellaPergola's decision to count as a survivor Jews who lived in the Holocaust period in North African countries (excluding Egypt), Syria and Lebanon. On his estimate, out of the 600,000 Jews who lived in these countries during the Holocaust period, about a quarter million are alive today, and about 150,000 of them live in Israel. "When I examined reports formulated in the past by Ukeles and other researchers, I found that they simply `forgot' to include these Jews in their lists," says DellaPergola.

TL;DR: these definitions are not limited to people who were in camps or even in Europe.

29:00: the huge densities were more of an exception and were achieved during truly massive actions, like the Hungarian operation, where all gas chambers had to be used at once. For most of the history of the camp the densities were lower than 2000 people per chamber. The matters of foreknowledge, chamber loading, doors and elevators are all discussed in detail here and here.

33:30: the author comically confuses the Auschwitz commandant Hoess with the unrelated Hoettl. This once again perfectly characterizes the author's level of knowledge and "scholarship". The phrases about the 2,5m are from Hoess, his disavowal of the number is from his essay on the Final Solution in Auschwitz.

34:56: on the cremation process and capacities see here, here and here.

43:00: of course Zyklon B was used for delousings. It was also used to kill people in a massive scale, as the documents (documenting the gas chambers in the crematoria - which were not found on the list of delousing installations) and witnesses (including Nazis during the West German trials in the 1960s, where there was not even a whiff of any torture or coercion) agree.

The whole video is based on a fallacy: just because some claims were made during the Nuremberg trial(s) isn't equal to them having been proven at Nuremberg.

The prosecution usually makes all kinds of claims, of varying credibility; the defense then makes its case and the court decides, the court's decision is reflected in the judgment. Needless to say, the Nuremberg judgment doesn't repeat many of the claims made during the trial.

Historians are not dependent on the Nuremberg trials for writing history and critique specific aspects of the trials all the time.

Around 0:50: "but what I have found is that generally recognized to be mainstream Holocaust historians have been denying key aspects of the Holocaust to the degree that they're"

No "key" aspects of the Holocaust have been denied by the mainstream historians.

"facts about the Holocaust that had been denied by mainstream historians things like mobile crematoria"

The structure and function of the mobile oil-fueled Kori cremation furnace are well explained in a diagram which the Institute for Heat and Fuel Technology of the Cracow Mining Academy drew of the furnace at Trzebionka, a satellite camp of Auschwitz, which it no doubt based on original documents from Kori. Furnaces of this type were installed in Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, Groß-Rosen and Ravensbrück, among others. The two furnaces in the first crematorium of Majdanek were of this type.
The furnace, which is shaped like a muffle, is lined with sheet iron on the outside. At the front we find the standard double door for loading the bodies. Beneath is the door to the ash pit, on whose sides two air valves are affixed to admit the air necessary for combustion. The incineration system is the same as that for the coke-fueled furnace.[lots of technical detail skipped]
The system for drawing off the flue gases consists of an opening on the muffle vault towards the front of the furnace, and a short smoke channel leading from the furnace into a small pipe. The latter is square and of cast-iron; a regular chimney is installed on top of it, in the form of a cast-iron pipe. The bodies were loaded via a castered trestle, just as for the coke-fueled furnaces.

And even provide a photo of one ("Mobile oil-fueled Kori cremation furnace."):

Elsewhere the denier Mattogno even cites a document by the firm Topf mentioning such mobile ovens:

Mobile, petrol-fired two-muffle oven, later converted into a stationary coke-fired oven. This type of oven was installed in Gusen (a subcamp of Mauthausen) and Dachau. The first one was ordered by the SS-Neubauleitung of the Mauthausen camp on March 21, 1940, as a mobile, petrol-fired oven ("fahrbarer Ofen mit Ölbeheizung"), but on October 9, 1940, it was decided to convert it into a coke-fired oven.

Yet elsewhere we effortlessly find further German documents about these mobile cremation ovens:

But we already see how much research the dumbo has conducted before making his video. Hint: none.

"or the pedal power brain bashing machines"

While this is the claim that appeared in a single testimony at Nuremberg, it had nothing to do with the Holocaust (the claim was about the murder of the Soviet POWs) and it has never become a part of the historical consensus. Obviously, historians don't just accept any claim by any witness.

"the use of diesel engines to execute prisoners"

We know that all gassing engines ran on gasoline. That some people got it wrong doesn't negate the fact that people were gassed with engine exhaust; a correction of a secondary aspect doesn't negate the key aspect.

"the use of steam chambers, electric plates to execute people all of which was well documented and proven at Nuremberg"

A lie: this was neither documented (no Nazi document about steam chambers or electric plates) nor proven (no other credible evidence proving specifically steam or electricity) at Nuremberg, and nothing like that appears in the Nuremberg judgment.

That some claims during the trial were made doesn't make the claims themselves documented or proven.

Around 2:30: Dachau gas chamber.

The chamber itself existed. It is not known if anyone was gassed in it. That a claim of mass gassing was made in a film without a reference to any source doesn't make this claim "proven at Nuremberg".

Around 5:30: "look when we say extensive documentation for the Holocaust this is what we're talking about: documentation at Nuremberg from the OSS, proven in a court of law"

Another lie. Prosecution presenting an exhibit does not amount to this exhibit being automatically proven in a court of law. Moreover, nothing cited by the creator of the video so far has been in the form of the original Nazi documents. An OSS document is not a wartime Nazi document. The Holocaust is documented by the Nazi documents (among other sources), not by random OSS reports.

Around 6:00: "in addition men were sentenced to death for their role in the mass extermination programs at Dachau, by denying the extermination program at Dachau you're calling into question the Nuremberg tribunals overall and calling into a question the death camps in the East"

Another lie. The extermination camps cannot be called into question by questioning Nuremberg, since the bulk of the evidence for them is not based on Nuremberg. Calling into question claims made during the trial doesn't call into question the trial overall. And here is the only mention of Dachau in the judgment:

Beating, starvation, torture, and killing were general. The inmates were subjected to cruel experiments at Dachau in August, 1942, victims were immersed in cold water until their body temperature was reduced to 28 degrees Centigrade, when they died immediately.

(A description of further experiments follows without necessarily tying them to Dachau, but these experiments are documented in any case.)

Mass gassings in Dachau did not enter the judgment and thus cannot be claimed to have been "proven at Nuremberg".

6:30: The Ziereis statement. While the gas chambers existed both in Mauthausen and in Hartheim (their existence being indepedent from the veracity of the Ziereis statement), the numerical estimates in the statement are obvious exaggerations but they entered neither the judgment (thus not "proven at Nuremberg"), nor the mainstream historiography. Moreover, the estimates in the statement could not have served as the basis for any historian since they would be private estimates by a person not in the position to make such estimates (Ziereis was responsible neither for Hartheim, nor for the Warsaw-Kovno-Riga-Libau area). So of course nobody has ever been obliged to take such private speculations seriously.

Around 9:30: "Why revise the numbers downward because when you do you call into question the validity of the charge in its first instance like if someone was attacked by a dragon then someone else says to them that's impossible dragons don't exist but then the person goes oh well I was attacked by a bear okay now we're supposed to believe that he was attacked by a bear just because he changed his story from the impossible to something possible no stop denying. Homicidal gas chambers at Mauthausen, 1.5 million people killed there. Done".

Ignorant nonsense by a low-IQ dudebro. First of all, he confused Hartheim with Mauthausen (1.5 million was claimed in the statement for Hartheim). Second, nobody has "revised" the 16 million number downward, it has never been accepted in the first place (see above). Third, the claims for the gas chambers at Mauthausen and Hartheim and the death toll estimates for these two sites are not based on the Ziereis statement (it is sometimes mentioned, but it's not a necessary source) - throw it away and nothing changes. The claims are based on the totality of evidence, including, for example, the West-German investigations in the 1950s-1960s during which numerous witnesses, including the SS men, were interrogated. Good historians don't simply accept a random claim without trying to corroborate it and without analyzing the totality of evidence. On the actual sources on the Mauthausen gas chambers see B. Perz, F. Freund, "Tötungen durch Giftgas im Konzentrationslager Mauthausen" in G. Morsch, B. Perz (Hrsg.), Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas. Historische Bedeutung, technische Entwicklung, revisionistische Leugnung, 2012 (2. Aufl.), S. 244ff.; F. Freund, "Tötungen durch Giftgas in Mauthausen und Gusen" in B. Bailer, W. Benz, W. Neugebauer (Hrsg.), Wahrheit und "Auschwitzlüge". Zur Bekämpfung "revisionistischer" Propaganda, 1995, S. 119ff.

Around 10:10: "Take Treblinka for example: we have sworn affidavits proving the use of steam chambers and electrified floors for mass killing"

And then he goes on to quote a document that is not a sworn affidavit by a witness. How more deceptive can one get?

He is citing a summary Polish government report (charges against Hans Frank) that was based on a variety of sources, not all of them equal. In this case, in the underlying report - the Nov. 1942 Polish resistance report to the Polish government-in-exile, itself a jumble of various sources - steam chambers were indeed mentioned - but not by anyone who would demonstrably be able to judge what substance was actually used for killing.

What might an outside witness observing from their hiding place see during a gassing? First of all, the exhaust escaping through the hatches in the roof (mentioned by witnesses and necessary against overpressure in the chambers); second, upon opening the gas chamber doors, possibly that same exhaust (smoke) and, on a colder autumn day, some actual mist rising from the still hot bodies (yes, it was very hot inside the gas chambers for obvious reasons). The assumption that the method of murder was steam wasn't that far-fetched from such observations.

And it was integrated into the resistance report - and yes, that means the compiler of the report was not critical enough, but this has no consequences whatsoever for the Holocaust historiography, because we don't base our historical judgments on such summary reports. It will suffice to say that not a single SS witness and not a single direct witness of the gassing equipment ever claimed that steam was used. The same applies to the electric extermination at Belzec, the claim that was based purely on rumors but not repeated by a single actual eyewitness. The author obviously has zero idea about how history-writing works.

And what does the actual Nuremberg IMT judgment say about Treblinka?

All who were fit to work were used as slave labourers in the concentration camps; all who were not fit to work were destroyed in gas chambers and their bodies burnt. Certain concentration camps such as Treblinka and Auschwitz were set aside for this main purpose.

Around 12:40: "'I can ask members of the tribunal to refer to page six of the album of documents relative to the Lvov camp, one of them is a picture of a trench in the valley of death the ground is soaked with human blood to a depth of one and a half meters', literal rivers of blood, why will you deny this ghoulish imagery? Why sterilize the Holocaust?"

And who exactly denies it? The Janowska camp is a well-established place of mass murder, see for example W. Beorn, "Last Stop in Lwów: Janowska as a Hybrid Camp", Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 2018, vol. 32, issue 3, pp. 445–471.

Around 12:50: Alleged memory-holing of the Nazi atomic bombs vaporizing 20,000 Jews. However, no such such accusation was officially made by the prosecution. Jackson asked a question without making a claim, least of all a charge. Jackson only made the claim that certain information was placed in his hands - but he did not take any stance on the veracity of this information. No Nuremberg exhibit (e.g. an affidavit) exists in which the claim is made. The matter was not followed-up. Nothing "proven at Nuremberg" here, the prosecution did not even make the claim in the first place. Deception by the author.

Around 15:00: Sawing the trees. Who denies this? The author does not cite any historians that agree that this claim is not true.

The occurence was simply not massive enough to have earned any special place in the historiography (how many did they kill this way - 5, 10, 20?).

Around 15:30: As we have seen, the mobile crematoria ovens are acknowledged even by the leading Holocaust deniers. The author is incompetent even in his denial.

Around 17:20: The Waldmann testimony is obviously unreliable, but neither Waldmann, nor his claims figure in the Nuremberg judgment. So again, nothing here that is "proven at Nuremberg". The mainstream historiography dismisses Waldmann's testimony as it is not beholden to something merely introduced at Nuremberg.

Around 19:30: The testimony about the Sonderkommando 1005 training at the Janowska camp is not denied by the historians. Sonderkommando 1005 existed specifically to incinerate the bodies of the Nazi victims and obviously they had to know how to do it, hence the training courses. The bone-crushing machine from Janowska, of which a photo exists, is dealt with at the "Cremation Devices, Methods and Times" link given above.

Around 21:30: "That's right from the tip of Narva to the Black Sea after killing all these people the special action groups then dug up and destroyed the evidence of 1.35 million dead bodies and all of this was done by 3,000 men"

It is obviously not being claimed that all the shootings victims' graves were destroyed, Sonderkommando 1005 simply did not have sufficient time for this, which is why so many graves were found after the war and are still being found. Another strawman by the dishonest author.

Neither did the SK 1005 men dig up the graves and burn the bodies themselves, rather they forced teams of the still surviving male Jews taken from ghettos or work camps to do the actual work. The bodies were incinerated on pyres (a more efficient method than mobile crematoria, where you would have just one muffle - you would have to have a whole fleet of those with you to make a noticeable dent), the brittle bones were crushed by the Jews themselves. The use of the bone-crushing machines and mobile crematoria was an exception. The SK 1005 had no need of them to be sufficiently efficient.

Around 22:15: Katyn. It should be noted that today there are numerous Katyn deniers in Russia and some even in the West, who are using the exact same dishonest tricks the author uses: searching for marginal wild claims (of which there is no lack with Katyn, including e. g. a wholly fake Katyn witness during the Madden Committee hearings or the claims of many of the officers having been drowned in the barges in the White Sea - the untrue rumors, that are analogous to the steam/electricity rumors mentioned above, that were nevertheless taken seriously at the time; the German exaggerations of the number of corpses (12,000 instead of about 4,400); the German fake news about the identity of the perpetrators (a list of alleged Jewish NKVD executioners, which we now know to be totally fake now, since we have the names of the actual executioners); then there is the wholly fake Tartakov report claiming the Soviet guilt - and it was even published by the Holocaust-denying IHR), taking things out of context, outright lying in some cases, claiming that all the evidence that does not suit them is fake (including documents and exhumations). Using the very same "methodology" one can just as easily "disprove" that Katyn is the Soviet deed, so the use of Katyn by the Western Holocaust deniers is an ironic double standard.

The author outright lies that the German Katyn guilt was proven at Nuremberg. It never appears in the judgment. Prosecution's claim does not equal judgment and does not equal "proven at Nuremberg".

The Soviets wanted to push Katyn through without the accused being able to contradict their evidence, but the Western judges would have none of it. During the judges' conference the Soviet judge Nikitchenko represented the Soviet line which is now also accepted by the deniers, namely that the Article 21 meant that the official reports are irrefutable. He was shot down first by Lawrence, who pointed out that nothing in Art. 21 says the evidence is irrefutable; then by Biddle, who added that the article only speaks of the way of introducing the evidence, nothing about its irrefutability. And finally by de Vabres, who pointed out that even well-known facts in general can turn out to be wrong.

In this situation, the tribunal judges and their deputies met on March 12, 1946 behind closed doors to consult on the petition. Aware of the unease that the representatives of the Western powers felt, Moscow was convinced that an agreement would be reached to reject the petition. Yuri Pokrovsky began by explaining why the Soviet prosecutors wanted the petition denied. Then Judge Nikitchenko spoke and, rather than discussing the crime itself or the identity of the perpetrators, posed a different question, namely, “whether it is permissible to subject to examination documents that the Tribunal must officially take judicial notice of without evidence according to Article 21 of the Statutes.” If, he asserted, the tribunal were to permit such an examination, then the “deliberations on the case pending and the charges raised therein” would be relegated to the background and instead the court would question the veracity of the duly-recognized governmental investigation reports. In order to prevent this from happening, Nikitchenko advocated “that a fundamental decision be reached, namely, that the petition be denied on the basis of Article 21.” This was the point at which Moscow’s unique opportunity to “dispose of” Katyn on the basis of Article 21 backfired. Both Geoffrey Lawrence, president of the tribunal and a British citizen, and his American colleague Francis Biddle were not willing to take up Nikitchenko’s suggestion and accept his interpretation of Article 21 without objecting. “By all due respect for the General,” Lawrence responded, “I cannot subscribe to his interpretation of Article 21. Article 21 stipulates that judicial notice shall be taken of such documents without provision of evidence but that does not mean that they cannot be refuted by counter-evidence.” Each side adhered to a different interpretation of Article 21: whereas the Soviets maintained that the veracity of official governmental reports was not to be questioned, Lawrence and Biddle were of the opinion that, in principle, such documents could be challenged. The conflict over the legal reading of the article highlighted the clash between two contradictory cultures and legal systems. For representatives of the Soviet Union like Rudenko, Pokrovsky, or Nikitchenko, who had been educated politically in the Stalinist system, challenging official state declarations was unthinkable. Biddle and Lawrence as well as French Judge de Vabres, in contrast, could declare that “even generally known facts that are taken notice of judicially without further evidence can be untrue and so challenging them cannot be prohibited.” When British Judge John Parker made the shrewd remark that “the indictment [did not have to] include the issue of the executions in Katyn Forest. It was based on this issue, and its reasoning referred to it. [. . .] If we refuse to allow the accused to call witnesses in their defence, then we deny their right to defend themselves.” Pokrovsky and Nikitchenko faced a fiasco. At this point, at the very latest, both must have realized that they were confronted with the resistance of all their colleagues and that all further efforts to steer the debate in the direction they desired were bound to fail. The only course of action that remained for the Soviet representatives was to abstain when, subsequently, a vote was taken. Stahmer’s petition was accepted with the votes of Lawrence, Biddle, and de Vabres.
[...]
While the increasingly nervous members of the Vyshinsky Commission began preparing their witnesses, Francis Biddle was also anything but idle. He assigned Herbert Wechsler, an assistant attorney general in charge of the US War Division, the task of writing an expert opinion that presented convincing legal arguments to support the Western interpretation of Article 21 as well as the decision reached on March 12. Biddle’s action underlined the fact that, in spring 1946, the American delegation was determined to not only quash the Soviet scheme but also to win the dispute over the interpretation of Article 21 and the Nuremberg statutes. In the course of the controversy, it became apparent that the discussion of legal issues was becoming a political power struggle. When the Tribunal judges met on April 6 for the decisive deliberations on Rudenko’s petition, the conflict appeared about to escalate. Francis Biddle presented Herbert Wechsler’s expert opinion and rejected Rudenko’s petition, charging that it was defamatory and presumptuous. Moreover, Biddle further raised the ire of the Soviets by declaring that, in the USA, the author of such a scandalous and vile product would be prosecuted for contempt of court and that Rudenko should be “sent to prison immediately.” That Biddle’s suggestion that Wechsler’s text might be read during a public session before arresting Rudenko was an obvious provocation addressed to the Soviets, in case they refused to give up their resistance to the Tribunal’s decision.
It is hardly likely that Francis Biddle was mostly motivated in this conflict by a desire to ascertain the truth about Katyn. The acerbic conflict that had been triggered by Stahmer’s petition and the debate over the interpretation of Article 21 developed into a proxy war, behind which loomed the contours of the Cold War. What is more, the way in which the conflict was ultimately resolved presaged future strategies of dealing with crises in the Cold War. On the brink of further escalation, a deal was negotiated that allowed both sides to save face. On the one hand, Rudenko’s petition was denied without any explanation of the reasons for the decision and without a discussion of the petition’s content in a public session. On the other hand, it was agreed that Herbert Wechsler’s expert opinion would enter the record of the Tribunal and not be made public. Nikitchenko declared that the Soviet side would no longer discuss Article 21 but that he would personally vote against the Tribunal’s decision.

In the end, the Soviet demands were denied, each side got the right to present 3 witnesses (which they did), and the Katyn case, so prominent during the trial, never entered the judgment - the Western judges obviously did not believe in the Soviet version.

The depths of the denier author's deception should have become clear by now.

Around 25:40: "... 100 witnesses, medical experts all confirm that it was the Germans who did this a mountain of documentation and witnesses all attesting that the Germans did this; how is it possible if the Germans didn't actually do it, were all the witnesses lying, were all these witnesses lying in unison, all 100 of them, and also for mainstream historians who deny this Nazi atrocity and instead blame the Soviets for it, do you deny the countless witnesses to the homicidal gas chambers of Dachau and Mauthausen - all attesting to the same thing, I guess they're all lying in unison"

First of all, the Soviets did not claim that all 100 witnesses claimed to have observed the Germans performing the Katyn massacre or its cover-up. 100 witnesses were interrogated, some of them - about 1/3, if we judge by the ones listed in the Soviet Katyn report - claimed to have been eyewitnesses of some aspect of the case or its cover-up which could not have been true. For example, seeing the Polish POWs on the roads in 1941. Notably, most of those are not some lengthy statements describing the details of the massacre, the fabricated parts sometimes take one sentence (so even when lying, it was not "in unison", as in, repeating the same identical sufficiently lengthy story). Many of the 100 testimonies are of the "I saw the graves during the 1943 excursions and thought the bodies were too fresh" variety, which would fall under the point 4 of the Soviet report's conclusion and which didn't even need much of nudging.

So what we have are some witnesses indeed lying, coerced by the NKGB and NKVD to lie in this particular case, since this was the case of the Soviets having been caught basically red-handed in their own crime and having no choice but to blame it on the Germans. This makes this case special and not analogous to the Holocaust or most other crimes. There is simply no evidence of numerous Soviet large-scale fabrications analogous to Katyn.

Even if it could be argued that the Soviet practices tainted their witness evidence in general to a certain degree (although this absolutely wouldn't allow us to dismiss the Soviet witness evidence altogether - it's always the case by case basis; numerous Soviet Holocaust witnesses left the USSR or lived long enough for it to fall - and did not claim coercion), there is zero evidence of e. g. the West-German authorities coercing any SS men to testify about the extermination of the Jews, so even if you throw away the Soviet Holocaust witnesses, you still prove everything without a hitch.

Second, the gas chambers both in Dachau and in Mauthausen are acknowledged by the actual historians.

Third, there are no "countless witnesses" to the Dachau gas chambers (there are just a couple, and that is, frankly, depending on how one defines "witness"), much less to mass gassings there (there is just one known person, Blaha, who claimed to have actually seen the result of a small trial gassing).

Moreover, those are not even Soviet witnesses, so the analogy would have broken down here if it existed in the first place.

Around 31:00: The author claims that the mainstream Holocaust historians now deny the Danzig human soap - and of course outright lies again, since they do no such thing.

Moreover, the Danzig human soap has little to do with the Holocaust since the soap (the making of which is a fact freely and without any coercion acknowledged by the soap-maker Dr. Spanner himself) is not claimed to have been made from Jewish corpses in the first place.

Around 32:00: The Krupp lockers used for torture: the author claims the mainstream historians deny this but doesn't quote any such historian or doesn't give any reason why such torture method is implausible and should be doubted. Not to mention that this has zero to do with the Holocaust.

Around 33:30: The personal estimates. The author shows his ignorant, low-IQ nature throughout this video but this must be the peak. He seriously accuses Raul Hilberg of not accepting another historian's exaggerated Auschwitz death toll while relying on him in other matters. Seriously? Once you cite a historian on one point you automatically agree to everything he says in the same book? What kind of imbecile thinks like that? A neo-Nazi brainlet, that's who.

More or less the same principle applies to Gerstein. Proper historians look at what the witnesses know themselves, what they observed as eyewitnesses, and what they repeat from other sources or speculate about. Gerstein's account is both valuable (we know he was in Belzec due to Dr. Pfannenstiel traveling with him and also testifying after the war and also due to him telling everything to his Dutch friend Ubbink during the war) and problematic due to his penchant for exaggeration and his volatile mental state. So some of what he says as an eyewitness will be useful to the historians, but lots will not be, and this includes his death toll estimates (no matter how convinced he himself was of them).

He was, very simply, not in a position to make such estimates reliably, which is why his estimates are not taken seriously by the historians. "All or nothing" is not an approach of the historians, it's the approach of dumb fanatics, like the author of this video.

Same applies to Bendel. He was not in a position to know the actual death toll of Auschwitz - despite the fact that he obviously was absolutely convinced it was 4 million. Witnesses' beliefs are not useful to the historians. What witnesses claim to have personally experienced is of interest. (But thanks for quoting the grilling Bendel took, which would not have happened during a show-trial.)

Around 40:40: The author does not quote any historian claiming that the Wannsee conference does not lay out an extermination plan. Because obviously it does.

That the extermination decision-in-principle was not taken at the Wannsee (but earlier) is of course known by the historians, and that's what Bauer, quoted by the author, is talking about, but that's beside the point.

Indeed, Bauer writes in his book Rethinking the Holocaust, 2002, p. 176:

The Wannsee conference of January 20, 1942, dealt with some of the administrative aspects of mass murder, and its protocol reflects some of the internal discussions among the Nazi leaders.

The author of the video, being of low intelligence, could not distinguish between the conference being about the genocide and mass murder and it not being the event where the genocidal decision was taken. The author's subsequent babbling on the "lack of documentation" is rendered obsolete.

Around 44:00: The author lies about the lack of evidence, of which there is plenty. For starters, see:

Around 44:50: Hilberg's mind-reading quote. First of all, if Hilberg had ever been a go-to expert on the Nazi Holocaust decision-making, this hasn't been so for many decades, and whatever opinions he has held on the matter, even if once relevant, are long obsolete. There's been a slew of in-depth research by Browning, Gerlach and many others who, unlike the generalist Hilberg, focused specifically on the decision-making aspect. This is to make a point that quoting in 2020 something Hilberg said on the issue in 1983 is about as serious as quoting Rutherford's views on quantum mechanics - maybe slightly interesting but utterly irrelevant.

That said, Hilberg meant the the Holocaust did not start out as a monolith, with a single decision (and it obviously did not, there was a complicated many-part decision-making route; the Holocaust is how we choose to name the associated series of events) with the local authorities often "working towards the Führer", offering their own extermination initiatives (like Greiser did with Kulmhof). And since there was no monolithic operation, there was no monolithic budget either. But just because there was no single "Holocaust budget" doesn't mean there weren't many budgets for specific operations, e. g. the budget of the Aktion Reinhard was covered by the Jewish property robbed during this extermination and plunder Aktion.

I'm finding the discussion of 'genocide by telepathy' amusing on two levels.
Firstly, the fact that deniers still repeat this makes them look really, really dated. The Hilberg article from Newsday is literally 35 years old now, since the article appeared on 23 February 1983. True, he repeated similar ideas or the exact same quote through the 1980s, but this quote has extremely Big Hair from ozone-unfriendly CFC-containing hairspray. Deniers need new material.
Secondly, Hilberg may have been a pioneering researcher and synthesiser, but in the debate over the origins of the Final Solution and decision-making, he has been more or less irrelevant for decades. The structure of the original edition (1961) of The Destruction of European Jews, which was retained in the 1985 and 2003 editions, meant that Hilberg largely slid past the issue of the timing of decision-making; the edits for the 1985 edition doubly ensured this. University students do not cite Hilberg when considering the origins of the Final Solution; they might cite him for the overviews of different countries or some other topics covered in his magnum opus, but not on this issue.
Ever since Browning's extended review in SWC Annual, few commentators on the origins of the Final Solution have really engaged with Hilberg on issues of timing or decision-making processes. Hilberg's exact wording was too loose to really be quotable. If one tried to apply it narrowly to the Wannsee conference, for example, then it simply doesn't work as an interpretation of the protocol or its surrounding paper trail. There were too many conflicts at Wannsee, especially over definitional issues, which continue to be reflected in further memos and letters, e.g. from Stuckart.
The broader point, however, is widely accepted, but it's a rather subtle and nuanced one. Few historians would disagree that Nazi decision-making involved many initiatives from below or from the 'periphery', designed to fulfil aims that were stated more vaguely from the centre, i.e. by Hitler. This is why Ian Kershaw evolved his concept of 'working towards the Fuehrer' in the 1990s, and why other historians such as Wendy Lower have tried out similar concepts such as 'anticipatory obedience'. Understanding how permissions, initiatives and orders coexisted is what understanding 1941-2 is all about. Failing to understand this complexity leads to a variety of dead-end interpretations that aren't accurate - including the interpretations proffered by Faurisson, Mattogno and other deniers, who lived through the era of debating the origins of the Final Solution but who clearly never lived it.
Essentially no historian would now accept the classic top-down totalitarian dictatorship model when applied to the Third Reich or the decision-making for the Final Solution. But this model persists in the popular understanding of Hitler and the Third Reich, so deniers think they can play on this ignorance and try LOLing when historians grope towards alternative models of understanding a more complex regime structure. The joke is on them, as the term 'polycracy' is apparently entirely absent from the entire revisionist oeuvre - it certainly isn't used in a single page, article or book chapter on vho.org when I have checked this.

Of course, there were also documents without any code-words, see e.g. the very explicit Jäger report.

One prominent example of using the code-words would be in the SS statistician Korherr's report on the Final Solution, where it was claimed that so and so many Jews were resettled "to the Russian East". Since these Jews actually went to Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor (cf. the Höfle telegram) and Kulmhof to be never seen again and never arrived to the "Russian East", it was, of necessity, a code-word.

To add to this, we also know that this deportation to the Russian East was a code-word from the following Himmler's order to Korherr:

The Reichsführer SS has received your statistical report about "The Final Solution of the European Jewish Question". He wishes that in no place a "special treatment of the Jews" is referred to. On page 9, item 4, the wording must be the following:
" Transportation of Jews from the
eastern provinces to the Russian
East: ............................
The following numbers were sifted
through the camps in the General
Government .............
through the camps in the Warthegau....."
Another wording may not be used.
I send back the copy of the report already signed by the Reichsführer SS with the request to change this page 9 accordingly and to send it back.

So Korherr initially used the code-word "special treatment (Sonderbehandlung) of the Jews" to refer to the Jewish stats supplied to him by the RSHA but was ordered to replace it with another code-word (note: in one place he forgot to remove the word, so it still appears in his report). And in the RSHA jargon "Sonderbehandlung" meant exclusively executions. In all these decades the deniers have been unable to find a single RSHA document that uses this word in a non-lethal sense.

Around 50:00: "don't let the millions killed in the gas chambers at Dachau, Mauthausen and Bergen Belsen be forgotten either, hundreds of witnesses and documents presented at the international military tribunals proving this"

Obviously there were no documents for such claims presented at such tribunals, so the author lies again. The "extermination camps on the Soviet-occupied territory" canard, which could only be repeated by an intellectually deficient individual, is dealt with here.

And of course, as we have seen, the mobile cremation ovens, accepted even by the leading deniers, existed; the evidence for the gas chamber in Dachau exists, but the evidence for gassings in it is weak and is not by any stretch of imagination comparable to the mountain of evidence we have for Auschwitz, including documents about the gas chambers and extermination of Jews. So the author capped off his litany of lies with another big one.

Of course he denies them over, and over, and over again (by using the inversion rule: mainstream historian "deny" some allegedly absurd claim [which is understood without saying not to have happened]):

"facts about the Holocaust that had been denied by mainstream historians things like mobile crematoria"
"the mainstream Holocaust historians are denying the well-established mobile killing machines that the Nazis used the Nazis not only had mobile gas chambers but also mobile crematoria ovens"
"oh good we have eyewitness testimony from the SS itself to confirm mobile cremation units I mean what more powerful evidence than a confession from a defeated enemy after a war he was one of the participants in"
"they weren't explicitly told anywhere to design and build mobile crematorium and then destroy any trace of their design and manufacture but that's what they did"
"the evidence that proves mobile crematoria is the same kind of evidence that proves homicidal gassings at Dachau is the same kind of evidence that proves mass extermination in the camps that the Soviets ended up controlling"

"in the video I actually had a picture of one with a caption saying it's a mobile crematoria"

Don't see any such picture in the version I saved or in the version that is online at the time of the writing, neither would such a picture negate the denial of the mobile crematoria as demonstrated above.

"the claim is that these things were being trundled around in Russia, along with mobile gas chambers and bone-grinding mills, in order to remove evidence of genocide"

No such claim has been made anywhere; the Waldmann testimony is specifically about Sachsenhausen, and the Janowska camp bone-crushing machine claim (a factual one, see the photo of it as linked to in the initial response) is specifically about that camp, not about Einsatzgruppen killings. No claim of mobile crematoria for the Einsatzgruppen victims is known.

"You didn't get that because your autism is such that you could understand the video is generally satire but you didn't pick up that calling Hilberg a denier by denying mobile crematoria just because he didn't mention it as part of the act."

It would take a dummy on the level of the author to miss the satire and to miss the point that no mobile crematoria claims are known for the Einsatzgruppen, so no historian is supposed to mention them, and thus them not mentioning doesn't make them deniers even in the satirical framework. Moreover, the denial of the mobile crematoria appears in the video numerous times outside of the Einsatzgruppen context, so the claim that the author only meant it in this context is just another deception. He very clearly denied the very notion of a Nazi mobile crematorium.

"He claims I mixed up Mauthausen and Hartheim castle, I did not, according to the holocaust conspiracy people were sent from Mauthausen to Hartheim to be killed after a psychiatrist claimed they were crazy."

Another lie, and I specifically quoted the full paragraph, which contained the words "Homicidal gas chambers at Mauthausen, 1.5 million people killed there. Done".

As the response now acknowledges, the victims were claimed to have died in the gas chambers at Hartheim, not at Mauthausen. That the victims were sent from Mauthausen to Hartheim doesn't make the Hartheim gas chambers the Mauthausen gas chambers.

"He brings up the judgment itself at the first IMT, and points out that the judgment doesn't mention the crazy stuff said in the proceedings. First off, it does mention the human soap,"

And I never said it doesn't. And as I have shown, the soap existed. The legitimate critique here would be to say that the judgment erroneously mentions it in the Jewish chapter, even though the soap had nothing to do with Jews.

"it does mention retarded Nazi experiments"

Just because they were such (go complain to the Nazis for being this way) doesn't make them not real.

"so those are at least two things I remember off the top of my head that the Nuremberg judgment does come down on which are either no longer believed by the mainstream or are in the process of no longer being believed."

Wrong on both counts. And even if I could understand why you would (wrongly) claim this about the Danzig human soap, your insistence that the well-documented experiments (some of which documented with photos of the victims, even) are somehow an endangered species is frankly baffling.

"But second off, okay say for example the torture cabinets or the nuclear weapons used against jews weren't mentioned in the judgment. Well, they should have. The judgment should have said "Nazis found not guilty of this, this, this, this"."

Nah, not up to you to decide.

"But there's an optics problem for the allies doing that. Because that list would be very long, having to mention all of the false accusations that were not upheld. And that's the point of the little #provenatnuremberg thing, to remind the viewer of all the crap that used to be part of the mainstream conspiracy."

Nah, the point is to mislead and deceive the viewer. And, to take just two examples, neither the electric current murders, nor 840,000 Soviet POWs killed at Sachsehausen, some of them with a rod through the neck, ever became a part of the accepted mainstream - a few newspaper headlines here and there that quickly disappear and never enter the "public consciousness" long-term do not constitute such. You would have better luck even with the "Jewish soap". (Which would still be irrelevant since it had some success with the public but never entered the historical mainstream.)

"Sergey bizarrely clings to the wansee conference, that's not worth addressing because that's the in the process of being phased out of the mainstream and the bias on this issue only goes one way, which is in favor of the extermination conspiracy, and the revision only goes one way, and that is in the direction of reducing the scope of the ever-shrinking holocaust."

This is hardly a response to my evidence that the author outright misrepresented the historians' views on the Wannsee conference, as well as its nature.

The "shrinking" is more of an oscillation when it comes to the overall death toll. You had figures of between 5 and 6 million Jewish victims already during the war and immediately after it. Reitlinger even went below 5 million in 1953, Hilberg estimates 5,1 million in 1961 - so if in the range of "between 5 and 6 million" one prefers the lower bracket, one is not shrinking anything anew, one is simply returning to some of the figures mainstream in the 1950s-1960s. As to the individual larger claims, many if not most of them became obsolete in the first post-war years, with some inertia, for sure (like with the Auschwitz or Majdanek death tolls), but eh.

Note how the core of the Holocaust is still the same: the systematic extermination policy towards Jews, the mass gassings and shootings, the most probable death toll somewhere between 5 and 6 million.

"Things that are mainstream today would have been considered denial 40 years ago. The western camps used to be extermination centers, and more recently, Auschwitz main camp used to be an extermination center and now that's moved to Auschwitz-Birkenau, which conveniently doesn't exist, and Majdanek used to be an extermination center."

In most cases it's merely a matter of shifting terminology. As I note elsewhere:

The term "death camps" is ambiguous and is sometimes used to designate "ordinary" concentration camps like Buchenwald or Belsen, which were not extermination camps, but which exhibited such atrocious conditions at some point that it was arguably a proper term to use. When you see piles of human bodies in the camps, even if they died of the so-called "natural causes" (the Nazis being still responsible for these deaths since they put these people there in the first place), surely calling those places of death "death camps" is a natural thing? It can, however, be misleading since some people will assume that extermination camps are meant.

So when Belsen was called a "death camp" it was appropriate in a sense. After the understanding set in, that, as a matter of intentional function, there were concentration camps with bad conditions and some massacres and then there were dedicated extermination camps, there was a shift away from the more "sensationalist" terms in relation to the camps like Buchenwald or Belsen, but the shift in the actual content of thinking about these camps was much milder. They continue to signify the Nazi atrocities.

Had you proffered such an explanation 40 years ago, you would have been late by at least 20 years (Broszat). It would not have been considered denial.

The notion that the extermination camp aspect in the discourse "moved" to Birkenau since the early postwar years is obviously preposterous. It was there from the start (by start we can designate the late 1944, after Vrba-Wetzler seeped in). Whether the designation has moved away from the Stammlager is an interesting topic, but why it was there in the first place should also be quite clear: "Auschwitz" is the name of the main camp and of the whole complex which leads to conflation; but again, when we look beyond laymen's perceptions into the content of the testimonies from the right timeframe (i. e. by witnesses who actually witnessed Birkenau after the beginning of the extermination there), Birkenau has always been the main extermination site incomparable to the main camp.

40 years ago you would not have had any problem pointing this out. There was great vagueness in regard to the death tolls (though today's accepted death toll would have been just as acceptable back then, cf. Hilberg), but aside from that? No serious accusation of denial could have been made.

Now, there is no strict and clear border between extermination camps and other kinds of camps. It's a spectrum. On one end we have Theresienstadt or Westerbork. On the other end we have Treblinka and Kulmhof. Majdanek is somewhere in the middle, hence it is still designated an extermination camp by some, but largely ignored in this capacity by some others. It had gas chambers and selections, systematic extermination. The use of the gas chambers was not very long-term and was relatively small-scale, the concentration function was at least as significant. So one can find arguments pro et contra for one designation or another.

This is perhaps the only case where you would have a good chance of raising some scholarly eyebrows 40 years ago - that is, unless you would have done the actual scholarly legwork Tomasz Kranz has done. There's a difference between a verifiable scholarly reanalysis and a mere assertion. And it's not like Majdanek had not had its share of "shrinking" long before Kranz - a rapid revision of 1,5 m to 360,000, then a later revision of that into 235,000. None of them considered denial.

"Sergey talks about the existence of unused gas chambers, look, Ellis island had gas chambers. Lots of places had gas chambers. Dachau's gas chambers had windows. He says "we don't know if they were used on people" okay that's true in the same sense that we don't know if the Ellis Island gas chambers were used on people."

I talk about the existence of the Dachau gas chamber because the author claims that it is denied by the mainstream historians. It is not true. So the author was being deceptive. Dachau's gas chambers had 2 openings in the outer wall that were closed by 2 flaps that apparently served for introduction of some substances (deniers haven't found any plausible alternative explanation - and yes, those flaps can be proven to have not been installed by the Americans). But that's beside the point since we are talking about whether the mainstream historians deny the Dachau gas chamber. They don't.

"Now what Sergey does, and this is common of the conspiracists, is to say Nuremberg doesn't matter, read the later historians. Oh this witness is making stuff up, but this witness is real. And so what you're doing is a kind of make-your-own holocaust."

Except this applies to all of history. History is not written by trials, witnesses' testimonies must be analyzed and used with caution and no rule says you have to use unreliable witnesses' testimonies.

"Look, what if someone wanted to deny Sherman's march to the sea? How would you respond to that? Well you're bring up the direct order from Lincoln to sherman and you could reference US and Confederate military reports that it happened, you could reference reports of property damage. You wouldn't have to invent secret coded language, you wouldn't have to rely on confessions after interrogations."

If I wanted to imitate the Holocaust-denying fools, I would have introduced some qui bono conspiracy theory, dismissed all documents as fakes under this pretense (peppering this with some real discrepancies which are inevitably found in real-life documentation if it's massive enough), found some contradictions in witness statements and dismissed all witnesses because of this, and voila, no proven "Sherman's march". It's not hard when one knows the topic. E. g. I know the topic of Katyn inside out, so if I lacked principles I could have written a huge treatise on how Katyn is certainly not a Soviet deed - all based on real and alleged discrepancies in documents and witness statements. Using only the standard Holocaust denial tactics. I've already given a taste of what is possible in the initial response.

The core of the Holocaust does't need giant tomes to be proved either. Giant tomes only happen when the deniers come, to address their BS. And the tomes can happen to any claim for which there is denial, be it Katyn or geoid Earth. But the initial case is very simple.

2. The gas chambers and mass shootings are documented (see the initial response).

3. So is the extermination intent (see the initial response).

That's all, case proven.

Now, if you begin with the usual denial tactics, carping on this clear evidence, it's you who is causing the "giant tomes" to be produced, not us.

"This is why I said in the video - say someone claimed to be attacked by a dragon, you say that's impossible dragons don't exist, then he says he was attacked by a bear, well that means he wasn't attacked at all."

This doesn't work on the logical level: the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises.

This doesn't work on the practical level: while you should not accept a say-so of someone fantasizing about dragons, he could have still been attacked by a bear, though you may not have the means to establish this to your liking.

This doesn't work in the context of this discussion: no relation to the Holocaust.

(Germans said that 12,000 Poles were shot in Katyn by mostly Jewish executioners (dragon). Turns out about 4,400 were shot by mostly non-Jewish ones (bear). Does your principle apply here?)

"And at root that's what you're doing. You're trudging through the muck of lies, and pulling out plausible stories and documents and testimony to weave together an extermination program that doesn't violate the laws of physics. But the basis of your rejection of all the obviously false tales are simply that those things couldn't have possibly happened, and mainstream historians who believe the conspiracy just keep what they want."

No, the main basis of rejection or acceptance has to do with the quality and quantity of sources.

Very simply, there is a hierarchy of evidence. A rumor repeated by a non-eyewitness does not equal a claimed eyewitness statement (which may or may not turn out to be correct, but it's still in a different category).

No eyewitness statement exists for the electric floors at Belzec. Only very few second-third-fourth hand hearsay/rumors. Numerous eyewitness statments exist on the gas chambers of Belzec by people in the position to know the truth. So by picking the latter but not the former no deceptive double standard is applied. Same everywhere. That's how history is written.

For any massive events you have wild, marginal claims and "stable", confirmed claims. As I wrote elsewhere:

Claiming that "soap & lampshades" (to which there is a core of truth, by the way) somehow disprove the Holocaust is like claiming that the falsity of the Angels of Mons story disproves the World War I.

Differing estimates in the literature are nothing new and nothing that "refutes" the Holocaust. Dresden bombing death toll estimates range from 20,000 to 1,000,000 (the true figure being 25,000). Does that mean the bombing never happened? No, only that not all estimates are equally credible.

"Another point of perspective is that the stories about mass murder and gas chambers were bandied about against the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Imperial Germany in WW1. The same corpse factory stories used against the Nazis were used previously against the Kaiser."

And? Unlike with the Holocaust, there was no evidence for those atrocity propaganda claims.

"Before that, 6 million Jews were killed, or something happened to them in Czarist Russia. And authors of the readers digest knew that 6 million Jews would be killed in Nazi Germany before the war even began. There's a good skeptic video documenting how the holocaust story had been written before the war even began.

So we don't need to go down your rabbit holes, we don't need to calculate how many bodies an oven could burn in a day, or how at Treblinka they dug up 100,000 or whatever corpses and burned them and destroyed the bones. We don't need to play any of these games because we know what the shot was before the war even began."

You could have taken time to read through the link I provided at the end and seen that this silly canard has been debunked. So your whole argument is based on incoherent nonsense.

"And if you want to say "where did all the Jews go", well there were about 9 million Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe, assuming none of them fled when the Nazis took over - that's another thing, there's a real chance that there weren't even as many Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe as the conspiracists claim were killed - but from 9 million, and based on their concentration in Poland and eastern europe we'd predict that about a million would die just from the war. From collateral damage, partisans, being conscripted, food shortages and disease."
Well, we have already seen that many more than that are missing. But in my initial response I did not refer to "all" Jews. I referred to specific Jews deported by the Nazis at specific times to specific places and simply vanishing afterwards. To refresh your memory:

One prominent example of using the code-words would be in the SS statistician Korherr's report on the Final Solution, where it was claimed that so and so many Jews were resettled "to the Russian East". Since these Jews actually went to Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor (cf. the Höfle telegram) and Kulmhof to be never seen again and never arrived to the "Russian East", it was, of necessity, a code-word.All the deniers have to do to refute this conclusion is to show where the Jews went instead: Seriously Now, Where Did The Jews "Evacuated to The East" Go?
We even have a standing challenge with 1000$ for name of a single one such deported Jew, no takers so far: Challenge to Supporters of the Revisionist Transit Camp Theory

"As for population numbers, one thing the conspiracists do is fixate on attacking skeptic arguments about how the Jewish population today is the same proportion as it was before the war, or the stuff about the Almanac or whatever. But look, when you get into that stuff, all you're saying is "the data on the number of Jews is indeterminate". The population numbers is not some argument for you to refute - it's a case you have to make. You're the conspiracist, you show it."

And no, obviously from the debunking of the denier World Almanac canard the conclusion about the "indeterminate" number of Jews obviously does not follow LOL.

"Because say you have Jews that flee Nazi Germany before the war, they flee Poland to the USSR, they go to the middle east, they go to the US, some Jews renounce their Judaism to avoid being sent to what they think might be extermination camps based on rumors at the time. How many, who knows..."
All of which is accounted for, and does not save the deniers from the "missing Jews" challenge above.

"And all these estimates of Jewish population - is that Jews by religion or Jews by lineage? They vary, and they're all over the place. Some population records on Jews come from the Soviet Union, which is inherently suspect, so I don't have to say anything about missing Jews because the record keeping on the global Jewish population was such a mess that you can't even show there were any missing Jews."

You haven't shown that it was a mess and some uncertainty in the demographic stats is always to be expected, but various sources converge on quite similar figures, showing the multimillion-fold losses of the European Jewry. You're a conspiracist, so you have to deny facts which are plain and for denial of which you have no good reason except to deny the Holocaust in the end, so your denial of these figures is not scientific or skeptical, it's teleological.

But suppose you don't want to deal with the "messy" overall figures. You can always deal with the much more precise Nazi deportation figures as specified in the challenges above. Yet you won't be able to address these challenges either - no denier can.

"Who knows, maybe they were told to get with the program and jury-rigged the numbers"

And you're a pathological conspiracist, too.

"Whatever, it's shit on the board, you can't say anything on that point because you don't know how many Jews there were then"

I have already demonstrated many times that I can. The data at the link is sufficient for any rational non-conspiracist.

"And these high level things are why it probably didn't happen. Not because of some investigation of the mechanics of the gas chambers at Belzec. The reasons we can dismiss the holocaust conspiracy are for multiple reasons that don't get into "the funhouse".

1. The western press had decided that Nazi Germany was going to commit a genocide before the war even began.

2. These same media amalgams pushed bogus genocide claims both before and after the war, including against Germany itself."

Nothing whatsoever to do with the historicity of the Holocaust even if the claims were true. So your very first presumably strong points immediately fall flat.

"3. The genocide was determined by victorious powers over a defeated country in a sham trial."

Actually it was determined by the evidence, both documentary and of other sorts, and had there been no trials, the exact same determination could be made.

And as to when the initial determination happened - look up the UN Declaration of 17 December 1942 (think "the grand jury indictment").

And there were subsequent exemplary trials (like the West German ones in the 1960s) which could not be accused of any sort of coercion towards the accused and which nevertheless confirmed the genocide and the specific extermination claims.

So once again the historicity of the Holocaust is not affected in any way.

"4. Anyone who later said such genocides did not occur - both immediately after the war, and to this very day - are imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned for doing so."

Bollocks. People in the countries supporting Holocaust denial are not sanctioned. Holocaust denial is legal in most of the world. As far as "social" sanctioning goes (which already doesn't apply to the above-mentioned people in the countries where denial is all the rage) - they laughed at Galileo - but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. If the Holocaust is true, its deniers will tend to be ostracized too. Which means that social ostracism of the deniers cannot serve as evidence that the Holocaust is false.

Finally, numerous Nazis were able to successfully deny their knowledge of and participation in the extermination, especially in West Germany. How does that work if this sanctioning is so pervasive?

So once again the historicity of the Holocaust is not affected in any way.

"5. The initial establishment of the genocide was done at nuremberg, where demonstrably false and cartoonishly stupid claims were made, though the final judgment was sanitized. Unlike a proper trial, instead of saying "the nazis did NOT use atomic bombs to kill Jews", they acted as if such accusations were never made, and cherry-picked the accusations that weren't impossible and said those had been established."

Where the "initial" establishment took place is irrelevant, it is only relevant whether it holds (it does). The Holocaust determination holds with or without the IMT.

Many of the claims in the video were not introduced at the IMT.

No actual "atomic bomb" accusation was made by the prosecution. That the information was not to be taken as an actual accusation was clear already during the interrogation and needed no further comment, especially not in the judgment, since there was no accusation:

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The reports, then, of a new and secret weapon were exaggerated for the purpose of keeping the German people in the war?

Most claims made at Nuremberg were not cartoonish or stupid, only a dishonest conspiracist would carp on marginalia.

We have already seen that the original establishment of the genocide had been done earlier than the trial took place. But to flesh it out even further, it was:

1) done during the war before liberation - which is when the term genocide was coined, in a much broader way than deniers would like;

3) done by looking at the number of survivors, first estimating then counting them, e.g. the IJA report of July 1945, which was sent to Robert Jackson and clearly alluded to in his opening statement without being entered into evidence;

4) done at non-Nuremberg trials occurring both before and concurrently with the IMT in multiple countries.

But again, one doesn't need trials to see that the genocide was committed.

So once again the historicity of the Holocaust is not affected in any way.

"6. The camps in the western zone were initially claimed to be no different from the eastern camps. Later western investigators determined they were not part of a genocide program, but we must still believe that the camps in the area where the USSR controlled all the evidence were where the genocides actually took place."

The author does not provide any claim that explicitly (and without the author's additions and speculations) says that the Western camps were no different from Treblinka etc.

The author repeats the silly "controlled the evidence" nonsense as if I hadn't linked to the rebuttal showing how incoherent this notion is. Only someone who has no idea what "evidence" is and what constitutes the evidence for the Holocaust could have repeated such a meaningless sentence twice.

So once again the historicity of the Holocaust is not affected in any way.

"7. The total kill count never goes down even as the number of "death camps" get picked off over the decades. This is evidence that the holocaust isn't actually a serious historical thing, but a political thing invented by non-historians; conspiracy theorist historians are then committed to upholding some shred of the Nuremberg verdict and weave the evidence for it after the fact."

More nonsense. Also pre-debunked. Long story short: the overall death toll results from demographics, not from the addition of separate camp death tolls, so changes in the camp death tolls do not necessarily directly affect the overal death toll, as there is a buffer in the form of the number of the deaths due to forced starvation, shootings and the like, which are less amenable to direct estimation; many of the camp death tolls that underwent revision did not include exclusively Jewish deaths (e. g. the Majdanek death toll mostly deflated on the account of non-Jewish deaths; Auschwitz' 4 million plaque did not mention Jews); there is some variation between the estimates of the overall death toll - which is why most estimates don't simply converge to 6 million but rather fall between 5 and 6 million, so this accounts for some of the individual death death toll changes - quite possibly due to the death tolls of some individual camps "shrinking" the lower-range overall estimates become more plausible.

So once again the historicity of the Holocaust is not affected in any way.

"8. To believe the extermination conspiracy, you need to either do two things: blindly believe the retarded basic narrative, which is what most people do, or delve into tomes that make all sorts of connections from cherry-picked documents and code words. Conspiracy theorist is the correct word for you, because it's not some normal historical event with clear and obvious evidence - the evidence is hidden, suppressed, in code, you have to connect train records here with warehouse records there etc."

The evidence is clear and obvious, as already demonstrated; and even if it weren't straightforward, it wouldn't make it any less true - to argue from the complexity of the argument is quite imbecilic, but par for the course for the simplistic conspiracist deniers.

33 comments:

Hello there.I really like this website, and I appreciate your rigour, but I can't help but feel like you're sort of preaching to the choir at this point. I think alt-right figureheads know they can't really deny the Holocaust openly without losing a lot of respect, though many continue to do it furtively.

I feel like the narrative that they are promoting is slowly changing, and many are instead choosing to not deny Hitler's actions, but justify them. Take the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia and Poland for example; a lot of revisionists will refer to the persecution of ethnic Germans in these countries. Ergo, the invasion of these countries were justified for those as well as other reasons.

I'm also seeing a lot of revisionists portray the Axis forces as distinctly virtuous, at least compared with the actions of the allied forces, especially the soviets. While I can't deny that the soviets did some heinous shit, as well as the commonwealth and american forces, I feel like this is just some equivocation tactic to try and garner sympathy for the Nazi cause. Is there any evidence to suggest that officers/soldiers of the Nazi armed forces were any more "benevolent" and principled than those of the "barbaric" red army?

Soviet civilians were also killed out of hand in large numbers by German forces including such of the Wehrmacht. Besides the genocide of Jews and Gypsies there was the Nazi struggle against Soviet partisans, with atrocities such as those mentioned here (lock men, women, and children into barns and to set fire to them) and portrayed in the 1985 Soviet film Come and See, which I think is the best war movie ever made (you can watch it on YouTube with subtitles, Part 1 and Part 2.) There was also the kind of violence referred to by Antony Beevor as quoted here:

A German officer described how shocked he and his soldiers had been when Russian civilians had cheerfully stripped the corpses of their fellow countrymen. Yet German soldiers were taking clothes and boots from living civilians for themselves, then forcing them out into the freezing wastes, in most cases to die of cold and starvation. Senior officers complained that their soldiers looked like Russian peasants, but no sympathy was spared for the victims robbed of their only hope of survival in such conditions. A bullet might have been less cruel.

On the other side there were the crimes on German soil committed by Red Army soldiers. Horrible stuff, though the most terrifying stories, like the Leonora Geier tale, only happened in the sick minds of extreme-right propagandists. Massive rape is supposed to have been the main behavioral difference between Soviet and German troops, but recent research has revealed that sexual violence by German soldiers was far more common than previously thought.

One thing that applies to both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht is that a minority of soldiers were responsible for a majority of the crimes. About 120,000 German civilians were killed by Soviet troops in the area east of Oder and Neisse, but the Vistula–Oder Offensive alone involved over two million men on the Soviet side. As concerns the Wehrmacht, German historians like Rolf-Dieter Müller estimate that less than 5 % of the troops on the Eastern Front were involved in war crimes.

Stalin’s Soviet Union, unlike Nazi Germany, did not commit genocide. Otherwise there wasn’t much to choose from between the two.

---

You may have a point in that downright denial of Nazi crimes, as opposed to relativizing them, is becoming less fashionable. The latter, as practiced for instance by Australian semi-denier Michael Mills (well known to me and some of my fellow blog authors), tends to be more sophisticated and less monotonous than the primitive no-one-was-ever-gassed blather, and may therefore be more effective in the long run.

@Gabi: Ever since the popular youtuber Logan Paul filming a dead body in the Japanese suicide forest incident that occurred around the beginning of this year, Youtube is really cracking down on new uploads with that blasted algorithm of theirs. Videos get flagged or downright removed and channels get community strikes. It makes running anti-denial channels on YT really hard because the algorithm thinks youre spreading denial. Recently I have been running a small youtube channel called "Holocaust Documents" and have had to deal with this BS lately. But older denier videos uploaded years ago on YT, in many instances, are still there with views in the five digits and sometimes even in the six digits.

"Stalin’s Soviet Union, unlike Nazi Germany, did not commit genocide. Otherwise there wasn’t much to choose from between the two."

Nonsense. The USSR engaged in multiple acts of genocide. Ukrainians were starved, as were Kazakhs, and countless ethnic minorities (Crimean Tatars, Poles, Chechens, Ingush, etc.) were deported from their homelands and died as a result. So yes, the USSR under Stalin did commit genocide, and it did so multiple times against multiple groups of people. Do not make the mistake of trivializing the crimes of the Soviets because the Holocaust was more brutal.

The UN definition of genocide requires an "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". While some hypothesize such intent on Stalin's part, it is pretty hard to actually document. Unlike with the Holocaust.

Thank you for your effort to refute all those videos. They are all over YouTube and they need some proper refutation. The people who make these "holohoax" videos have absolutely zero idea about what they are talking about.

On the other hand, the comments are entertaining to read, so I guess there is a plus after all. :)

If you have time, can you rip apart this pseudo-documentary called "Judea Declares War on Germany" made by Frederick Toban. He basically goes to one of the camps and tries to "debunk" the Holocaust. Would be nice if you can provide even a short rebuttal to that crap.

Thanks for the link, Junk. I will respond, but I will note that he begins with an obvious lie: "He says I say mobile crematoria didn't exist, that's false".

Of course he denies them over, and over, and over again.

"facts about the Holocaust that had beendenied by mainstream historians thingslike mobile crematoria"

"the mainstream Holocaust historians aredenying the well-established mobilekilling machines that the Nazis used theNazis not only had mobile gas chambersbut also mobile crematoria ovens"

"they weren't explicitly told anywhere todesign and build mobile crematorium andthen destroy any trace of their designand manufacture but that's what they did"

"the evidence that provesmobile crematoria is the same kind ofevidence that proves homicidal gassingsat Dachau is the same kind of evidencethat proves mass extermination in thecamps that the Soviets ended upcontrolling"

Someone who lies about the very thing they chose to emphasize? Both pathetic and pathological. Rest later.

"He says I say mobile crematoria didn't exist, that's false, in the video I actually had a picture of one with a caption saying it's a mobile crematoria, the claim is that these things were being trundled around in Russia, along with mobile gas chambers and bone-grinding mills, in order to remove evidence of genocide."

Not really, since the denial of the mobile crematoria as such is clear, and this denial is then deceptively denied. The rest will be responded to too, of course.

Oh, one more denial quote:

"oh good we have eyewitness testimony from the SS itself to confirm mobile cremation units I mean what more powerful evidence than a confession from a defeated enemy after a war he was one of the participants in"

Oh, and as to "in the video I actually had a picture of one with a caption saying it's a mobile crematoria" - care to specify where? Because somehow, surprise surprise, I can find it neither in the version I have saved, nor in the version that is currently up on YouTube.

Care to point out the exact time at which the alleged picture appears?

"Not really"Yeah, really.Look, I get that you're really, REALLY into the subject, but trying to mischaractarize a point does not lend to your argument, it diminishes it.

"Mobile cremation units"The keyword there would be units, i.e, SS units trawling around the Russian front disposing of the evidence.Which is what the quote is talking about, when the guy then pulls out direct quotes from trial itself discussing the matter about 10 seconds afterwards.

"Can you show me where"Nope, I don't want to trawl through a 50 minute video looking for a picture to win an argument on the internet, he should've included a timestamp.

Nah, sorry, 'Unknown', if someone at IMT had claimed mobile crematoria operating in the occupied USSR then revisionists would have been all over that. But they (Mattogno, Rudolf etc) haven't mentioned this. Instead we have Carlos Porter touting the Waldmann affidavit (USSR-52) several times i Made in Russia: The Holocaust, which is likely the video-maker's source. The video-maker garbled and seems to have misunderstood Waldmann's affidavit re the murder of Soviet POWs at Sachsenhausen, which is outside Berlin. Just because the victims were Soviet POWs doesn't imply they were being killed or cremated in the occupied USSR. Waldmann's statement mentions mobile crematoria, which absolutely existed and were used in the concentration camps in Germany, as well as in the euthanasia centres. Kori made them.

The open-air cremations by Aktion 1005 at some (not all) killing sites in the occupied Soviet Union were carried out using pyres, some of which were built on grates of railway ties. Sometimes in Russian-language reports these are referred to as pech', plural pechi (печь, печи) which translates multiply as fire, furnace, oven - it's an all-purpose word whose precise meaning depends on context. It's used in the reports to describe pyres as well as crematoria. From time to time, the pyre sense of pech' gets mistranslated as crematorium. (The Russian language also has the loan-word krematorii (крематорий) for crematorium.) But I don't see any discussion of mobile furnaces, grates or crematoria in Smirnov's presentation at IMT when he discusses Aktion 1005 at Janowska (Yanov in Russian).

> Look, I get that you're really, REALLY into the subject, but trying to mischaractarize a point does not lend to your argument, it diminishes it.

Note sure why you would lie about me trying to mischarachterize a point whereas I have mischaracterized none. He got caught lying, red-handed. He explicitly (within the inversion framework) denies the existence of the mobile crematoria as such. I have shown this with numerous quotes, of which you have addressed only one.

> The keyword there would be units, i.e, SS units trawling around the Russian front disposing of the evidence.

Not sure why you are trying to lie right now, even though I have already pointed out in my second response:

"No such claim has been made anywhere; the Waldmann testimony is specifically about Sachsenhausen, and the Janowska camp claim is specifically about that camp, not about Einsatzgruppen killings. No claim of mobile crematoria for the Einsatzgruppen victims is known."

(And you might object you haven't read my response yet, but the primary source - the Waldmann testimony - is also readily available, and you could have checked *it*.)

> Which is what the quote is talking about, when the guy then pulls out direct quotes from trial itself discussing the matter about 10 seconds afterwards.

The "units" part characterizes the Waldmann testimony which was not about Einsatzgruppen but rather about Sachsenhausen.

> Nope, I don't want to trawl through a 50 minute video looking for a picture to win an argument on the internet, he should've included a timestamp.

Ah, but you see, his pictures with quotes and cabinets and whatnot last more than 1 sec, you can see them with the preview feature at youtube. Can you find any mobile crematorium picture this way?

I'm very glad you have no objections to the following facts: he denied the existence of the mobile crematoria, I pointed out that he denied it (so there was no mischaracterization), then he denied his denial.

I honestly don't get the point about the IMT allegedly using "Bad Evidence".

It's a court's job to review all the evidence presented and sift the wheat from the chaff. And it's the defense and Prosecution's job to do EVERYTHING they can to prove their case.

Complaining about IMT because "soap" or "lampshades" got reviewed is like claiming that OJ Simpson was convicted of killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. So what if the LA court actually acquitted him? The prosecution provided evidence that he did it, so they must have found him guilty.

It seemed like he was accepting the existence of Mobile Gas Chambers to me. I like Ryan, but he should read up more on this stuff. What he's into is Race Realism, but maybe he'll get back onto this again.

Ryan, you are terrible at this. "You know more holocaust factoids than me, because it's all you do. Congratulations." - what sort of anti-intellectual garbage is this? are you gonna call him a book-reading nerd next?I'll give you credit for one thing - your genius "dragon and bear" logic finally made me realize the Dresden bombing never happened at all.

Yes, the infamous Dresden bombing, with the claimed 1,000,000 victims, the fake TB 47 document, the melting bodies (bodies are not made of ice, they don't melt!) and turning into puddles of melted flesh, bodies turning into jelly, bodies shriveling in a second to the size of a child (because skeletons work like that!), bodies glowing bright orange and blue and then either disintegrating into ciders or melting into a thick liquid, often three or four feet deep in spots, bodies burned on impossible pyres and vanishing without a trace (no physical evidence!), the alleged bombing allegedly committed without any military purpose (would the Allies have done that in wartime?!). But was there any bombing at all? I have been to Dresden and it was fine. I haven't seen any signs of the bombing. No physical evidence. We need the Truth!

This is a minor, pedantic point, but in the article around discussing the 21:30 talking point, you say, and I quote

" The bodies were incinerated on pyres (a more efficient method than mobile crematoria, where you would have just one muffle - you would have to have a whole fleet of those with you to make a noticeable dent), the brittle bones were crushed by the Jews themselves."

Given the rather foolish mania for deniers to talk about fuel efficiency, and how open air pyres are not particularly fuel efficient compared to even a mobile crematorium, I might suggest you edit it to something like "A more time efficient method", to avoid potential de-railing by deniers who won't want to deal with the main point.

I won't change the article since it has been responded to, and it should be clear from the context that I'm talking about efficiency towards a particular goal. Moreover, with pyres the huge part of the fuel is wood (procured locally), so in the end you end up with less of "your own" fuel that you have to actually transport and waste.

I was going to ask if you were on twitter, and I was also going to suggest you debunk mike enochs frequent denials as he's one of the biggest deniers online, blocks anyone competent who refutes him, and would probably get you much exposure

Do you have a place where you have written down exactly what you have studied had happened and all the facts and figures relating to it? I've only ever read very abstract things relating to the holocaust.

Said differently, I want to read your holocaust with your proof accompanying it.